Liability Law Test Revision Flashcards
Explain how the 3 part test in the case of Caparo v Dickman (1990) is used to establish a duty of care.
The caparo test that was made because of this case askew the three questions: (a) damage must be reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant’s conduct, (b) the parties must be in a relationship of proximity or neighbourhood, and (c) it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the defendant. If all of this questions can be answered with a yes then the defendant is liable and a duty of care has been breached
What was the reasoning in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1990) by the House of Lords in dismissing the claim against the police?
If the police owed a duty of care to everyone, then everyone will be able to sue the police if a crime happens to them and there is no way that the police can stop every crime
How is the objective standard of care of a ‘reasonable person’ described?
This is basically questioning what an ordinary and reasonable person would’ve done in that situation.
By what standard are professionals judged?
Professional standard of care
What was the significance of the Nettleship v Weston (1971) decision in relation to learner drivers?
This case made it so that learner drivers are judged at the standard of competence, so the same as other drivers.
When examining risk factors, there are 5 key points to consider. Explain and describe at least 3 of these.
T
Looking now at damage, what do we mean by the factual, or ‘but for’ test?
This question is asking, but for the the actions of the defendant, would the damage have been caused.
Explain how ‘novus actus interveniens’ can affect blame in legal causation.
This means that in a chain of events leading from one accident, you have another which is totally unrelated, then the chain of causation is broken. The liability will still exist for the first accident but the intervening event cannot be relayed to the first.
Explain how the remoteness of damage and foreseeability can impact a claim.
These can impact claims because if they are so unpredictable then you wouldn’t be able to put the blame on someone because they wouldn’t have been able to see that coming.
What is meant by ‘Res ipsa loquitur’ or ‘the thing speaks for itself’.
Res ipsa loquitur means that in certain situations the claimant may not know what happened, only that a breach of care and negligence has occurred and that he has suffered an injury or damage.
The need for the claimant to prove fault in negligence can result in at least 4 problems. Describe at least 2 of these.
Need for lawyers and there are usually delays to getting your case heard in court
Explain the two main defences in a claim of negligence.
- Alleging the claimant is partly to blame for their own injuries.
- Alleging the claimant consented or agreed to accept a risk or harm.
